Book II - Kaliphlin: Guild sign-up and Discussion

[NiceMarmot]

I'm really kind of liking Ecclesiastes' new challenge build for Mitgardia. I like the preponderance of categories and phases -- it encourages people to build a lot of different things. I'm wondering if we can do something similar here in Kaliphlin.

I'd suggest that the University of Petraea offer a new multi-disciplinary degree program, "Master of Historica" perhaps. The degree consists of multiple disciplines, including architecture, landscape design, history, geography, hydrology, agriculture, zoology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. Multiple "subjects" are set for each discipline, and we must build MOCs that cover all the subjects in a discipline (and eventually every discipline). You can only get credit for three subjects per build (or whatever limit we set). Example subjects:

• Architecture: round walls, round towers, different roof techniques, advanced SNOT, 1x1 round plate walls (a la Derfel Cadarn), microscale, forced perspective, building in wood, half-timbered Tudor style, etc...
  
• Landscape Design: ordinary rocks and cliffs, sideways rocks, SNOTted rocks, palm trees, various other tree techniques, desert scene, flowers, etc.
  
• Geography: mountains, cliffs, oceanside, river scene, forests, swamp, sand dunes, etc.
  
• Hydrology: still water, waves, flowing water, waterfalls
  
• Anthropology: city, village, countryside, tribal, Kaliphlin life, Avalonia, Mitgardia, Nocturnus, Valyrio, etc.
  
• Zoology: brick-built animals, dragons, birds, etc.
  
• Agriculture: crop farming, raising livestock, fishing, harvest time
  
• etc...
  

So you could build a city scene in Avalonia with a round tower using advanced SNOT and a forced perspective in the background with great palm trees and still water and a brick-built dragon, thus hitting eight subjects, but you'd only get credit for three.

To get credit for a subject, you'd have to get a certain number (5?) of Kaliphlin guildmembers to give you a thumbs up in the comments for that subjects. Then you're certified for that subject. So theoretically your peers could tell you (in a nice way) that you need to fix something or build more of them or whatever, until they feel you've really nailed it.

To get a Master of Hydrology degree for instance, you'd have to build MOCs that got you certified in all subjects for that discipline. And if you achieved masters degrees in all the disciplines, only then would you get the Master of Historica degree.

I think that we'd probably allow each student up to perhaps three "advanced placement" subject certifications at the start, based on MOCs previously completed within the past four months. So if you'd just built an awesome round tower right before the challenge started, you wouldn't have to build another one; you could get credit for that subject right away. And the challenge would be open-ended; no ending point.

What do you all think?

[Gideon]

@NM: Great idea with the degree program! Everything that encourages participants to improve their their build techniques will in my opinion benefit GoH as a project as well. And isn't one of the main goals of GoH also to make the participants improve?

Having some kind of peer review and opportunities to improve it before getting credit for a build also sounds like a very good approach!

I am also inclined to think that Kaliplin would benefit from adapting some kind of system to encourage builders to flesh out the guild style (regardless of technical finesse). For example, I think it would be great if we could see more "everyday life" Kaliphlin builds.

I don't know if titles are the best solution however, at least not like the exaggerated Avalonian titles (like "High King of the Elves" awarded for one small MOC). It's really that which has made me not advocate a title system before...

More hard-won and more reasonable titles in the Mitgardian way might however be a good way to make some people get a few bricks further than otherwise?

I'm thinking something along the lines of for example "Master Merchant" being the ultimate title in a "Trade" category.

Since Ecclesiastes approach for Mitgardia looks so good to me, I wouldn't be ashamed of copying it

I don't know if this could be combined, or if we could try to have one technique-centered system and one content/story-centered system?

Edited October 3, 2013 by Gideon

[Legonardo]

This sounds like an academy

[LegoDrake]

This sounds like an academy

It's like Hogwarts!

[Gideon]

Thanks Gideon! Ooh, are you working towards a show or something too? Which LUG are you in?

Here is a WIP sneak peek of my module of the Swebrick medieval community build, as a feeble excuse for not putting my building time into enhancing the glory of Kaliphlin.

Sadly way too Avalonian, but my character is after all Avalonian by birth so the castle will probably make a GoH appearance in some way

Edited October 3, 2013 by Gideon

[soccerkid6]

@Gideon: That looks amazing! I especially like the gatehouse

[SkaForHire]

I really like NM's idea, that is something we should definitely flesh out in the next week or two and then create an overarching program that lasts all of book 2 based on it.

But, while you all wait -- here is our first mini-challenge for this book

[Gabe]

Sweet idea NM, i definitely on board with the idea of a peer reveiwed system that helps ppl stretch themselves as builders.

Gideon, that looks great! The little humpback bridge is awesome, and the castle looks very promising. Will you be posting the finished display in the History forums?

Oh gosh, a new challenge - i'll have a closer look at this when i get back on Sun. Thanks Ska for orginising it!

Ok, i've got to get packed now. Wish me luck that i won't have any smashed towers etc during the show...

[NiceMarmot]

Gideon, wow, lots to like about that build! The castle is great, and I'm really liking the drawbridge, the path, the reeds, the bridge, ... well, just about everything actually!

Gabe, good luck! Have fun, and looking forward to pictures!

[NiceMarmot]

Thanks for the feedback on my UoP Master program idea. Here's what we need to flesh out / determine:

1. How many disciplines and subjects?
   
2. What are the disciplines?
   
3. What are the subjects?
   
4. How many subjects can you get credit for in any one build?
   
5. How many of your peers do you have to get a +1 from before you're certified in a subject?
   
6. How many certifications can you get for "advanced placement", and what's the cutoff for how far back an MOC you can use?
   
7. Can we get a really cool badge for anyone who finishes the whole program? (Ska: hint, hint)
   

Taking a crack at throwing out some ideas:

1. I'm thinking it should take someone about 12 decent-sized builds (not tiny little vignettes) to get through the whole program. Maybe 10, maybe 15. Let's say 12 for now. Assuming you can get four certifications per build, that's 48 certifications. Plus let's say you could get four advanced placement certs for builds you just did. That's 52 total certifications. So I'm thinking we need somewhere in the neighborhood of eight disciplines x seven subjects each.
   
2. Disciplines: Architecture, Landscape Design, History, Geography, Hydrology, Agriculture, Zoology, Anthropology, Business, Law
   
3. Subjects: the ones outlined in my first post, plus more! For Business, we'd have stuff like marketplace, manufacturing, caravan/shipping, and for Law we'd have some government and law related subjects
   
4. I think we're going to have a lot of possible subjects, so I think at least four certifications per build should be the max. (You could do a build with fewer of course.) Otherwise people would never get through the program -- you'd have to build 30 or 40 MOCs...
   
5. How many Kaliphlin guildmembers need to certify your build? I'd guess about 1/3 of active members. More than that, and it will be hard to get certified since some people don't see every build. However, we do need to guard against people buddying up in sort of a you-certify-me-and-i'll-certify-you way. Perhaps you don't get certified if two or three guildmembers veto it?
   
6. Advanced Placement: I'd say about four to six certifications? Up to three or four months back? Subject to the same peer review. Not sure about these numbers at all.
   
7. Badge: I sure hope so, after 12-15 peer-reviewed MOCs!
   

Well, that's my strawman proposal. I'm kinda just throwing out some ideas and numbers here, and certainly am not strongly attached to the numbers. So feedback and suggestions greatly appreciated.

[NiceMarmot]

I put the tentative disciplines and subjects up on a wiki page, so that others can edit it. That way we can have a standard list that everyone can refer to when we're discussing these things. But we should probably have the discussion here. So don't edit the wiki page without mentioning it here also, otherwise we won't know why something was changed.

[Kai NRG]

Thanks for the feedback on my UoP Master program idea. Here's what we need to flesh out / determine:

1. How many disciplines and subjects?
   
2. What are the disciplines?
   
3. What are the subjects?
   
4. How many subjects can you get credit for in any one build?
   
5. How many of your peers do you have to get a +1 from before you're certified in a subject?
   
6. How many certifications can you get for "advanced placement", and what's the cutoff for how far back an MOC you can use?
   
7. Can we get a really cool badge for anyone who finishes the whole program? (Ska: hint, hint)
   

First, I really like the idea. It sounds like a great way both to give some incentive to free-building and to push members to try out new techniques. 12-15 MOCs to finish sounds like a good number as well. However, I'm not sure we need so many sub-divisions. What if we only had say seven disciplines with three placements each? That way there wouldn't be so much pressure to combine techniques quite as much; if we had 56... that just sounds like a huge chunk and really would make it hard to focus on anything less than the max. amount of placements allowed if you ever wanted to get done! If we only had 21, we could say that you could combine a max of two which gives way more incentive for doing just one every once and a while. It still allows for a minimum of 9 if there are three advanced placements possible. If we really weren't able to cover every thing we wanted then we could have a second year or something.

2. Your list sounds good. I'm not sure we need Landscape Design, Geography and Agriculture (though they are different, build techniques would be similar, since it all has to do with landscaping). History (could incorporate a wide variety of builds and techniques; at least one focus on mini-figures and posing), Business (Trade might be a better name? - this would focus on bazaars and busy scenes), Law (Court manners/technique - focusing on interior scenes), Architecture (interior/exterior), Geography/Agriculture (one of the two - this would be the exterior/landscaping category), Hydrology (water techniques), the last one could be something a bit more technical/abstract (but what would the sub-divisions be?), or it could be military training - battle organization, duel scene, and something else. I would suggest though that when we focus in n three, don't make it anything too specific - round tower is fine, but I wouldn't want it to be more specific (like tower with round 1x1s) using pieces someone might not have.

3. I have several ideas for the disciplines I listed, but maybe it would be better to zero in on a discipline list before spewing subjects out?

4. As I mentioned, if we go with 21, two per build would probably be good. If we go with 56 though...

5. I think it might be better to pick a few 'judges' (maybe the council?) and get say half of them to give you a thumbs up (because probably not all of them will see it). Veto sounds like a good possibility.

6. Three-Four would be a good number. Up to six months back maybe? Or four, it doesn't matter too much.

[SkaForHire]

I kind of thought that this would be a building program that last throughout Book II, so a year and a half, similar to Avalonia's title system. I am sure in that time we could do 30 subtopics, with builds qualifying for up to three different subjects. Although, I did like the larger number, just throwing down a compromise. I think one of the reasons NM proposed such a large program was to keep everyone from having the exact same titles in four months (like Avalonia) his method makes it a little more unique and harder to earn titles. Other than the one title I threw around last year, Kaliphlinites don't have a title system, in a way it is refreshing if they only come once in a blue moon, but I think this system would be acceptable and is right in line with GoH's mission statement of telling stories and making us better builders.

I can ask about the badge, but I am not staff -- I merely have the power to make your text disappear. (Think about that!) So no guarantees there.

Art should be added to the lists of disciplines. I think Geography is different from agriculture, but agriculture is too close to landscape design -- so they could be merged.

[NiceMarmot]

However, I'm not sure we need so many sub-divisions. What if we only had say seven disciplines with three placements each?

After sleeping on it, I'm leaning this way too. I think 56 is way too many. I'm not sure 21 is enough either. But let's flesh out the disciplines and subjects and see how it goes. I think that for some disciplines, like Geography, Agriculture, Business, Law, etc, the program could be more like: "complete any three of the following subjects". For something like Architecture, it's probably good to have a group of core subjects that everyone has to complete, but that's probably not necessary for some of the other disciplines.

Each MOC is going to cover at a minimum two subjects hopefully -- one building technique subject and one 'content-related' subject.

2. Your list sounds good. I'm not sure we need Landscape Design, Geography and Agriculture (though they are different, build techniques would be similar, since it all has to do with landscaping).

That's an interesting idea -- perhaps we could combine them.

or it could be military training - battle organization, duel scene, and something else.

Yes, we probably need some sort of military discipline, to ensure that people get a few battle MOCs done!

I would suggest though that when we focus in n three, don't make it anything too specific - round tower is fine, but I wouldn't want it to be more specific (like tower with round 1x1s) using pieces someone might not have.

Agreed.

5. I think it might be better to pick a few 'judges' (maybe the council?) and get say half of them to give you a thumbs up (because probably not all of them will see it). Veto sounds like a good possibility.

Depends on how many active guild members we have I suppose. I could go either way on this one.

[SkaForHire]

Prizes updated for Life and Death in Kaliphlin

Also, we can always add new programs as we go in the degree challenge.

[Kai NRG]

Yes, 21 might be too few. Something around thirty sounds like it would be good.

Each MOC is going to cover at a minimum two subjects hopefully -- one building technique subject and one 'content-related' subject.

I'm not quite sure I understand that... I kind of thought that the idea was (say for history, with say three subjects), something like, Minifigure Posing, some sort of landscaping technique (say, building at different elevations), and something else (all building techniques). Then you would build something that fell under the History category that would qualify for at most two (that could of course change) of the techniques.

Art should be added to the lists of disciplines. I think Geography is different from agriculture, but agriculture is too close to landscape design -- so they could be merged.

Art is certainly a good one. I had forgotten about that. Music could fall under that as a subject too. And yes, Geography and Agriculture are definitely different, but I would think the subjects (or building techniques) would be very similar - though maybe not?

[Gideon]

Each MOC is going to cover at a minimum two subjects hopefully -- one building technique subject and one 'content-related' subject.

So it would be possible to for example build a MOC with a brick-built creature on a sand dune in front of sideways rocks with a round tower on top and get 4 credits for the same MOC?

Or should there be a limit for how many credits one can claim for a certain MOC, at most one credit of each kind (technique/content)?

In this case only one of the technique points would be possible to score in a single build (which topic is specfied by the builder, for example "sand dune") and another credit could be a content-related one (for example "Defensive structures: Build an outpost" if we do something like Mitgardia)?

This would also mean that the peer-reviewers can focus their judging on what the builder is stressing in his/her MOC. Of course it would also be encouraged to comment on other aspects, but those would not factor into the "passing" of the build.

I think we can put up a lot more categories than what would ultimately be needed to "graduate", as this will increase the spread of our builds and help us flesh out the guild even more. I also think it could be a good idea to allow a reasonable number of "own subjects" that a builder can get credit for, to allow for new categories being invented along the way. Of course the official subjects will still be the bulk of the credits needed.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Gideon

[NiceMarmot]

So it would be possible to for example build a MOC with a brick-built creature on a sand dune in front of sideways rocks with a round tower on top and get 4 credits for the same MOC?

Or should there be a limit for how many credits one can claim for a certain MOC, at most one credit of each kind (technique/content)?

In this case only one of the technique points would be possible to score in a single build (which topic is specfied by the builder, for example "sand dune") and another credit could be a content-related one (for example "Defensive structures: Build an outpost" if we do something like Mitgardia)?

This would also mean that the peer-reviewers can focus their judging on what the builder is stressing in his/her MOC. Of course it would also be encouraged to comment on other aspects, but those would not factor into the "passing" of the build.

Exactly. We need to decide how many subjects you can address with a single MOC. We don't want people creating MOCs that are just jammed with twenty different subjects. I think three or four is probably about right. Once we know that, we can calculate how many subjects we need to allow for 12-15 MOCs to complete the entire program.

At a maximum of three credits per MOC, plus three AP credits to start with, twelve builds would cover at most 39 subjects. At four credits per MOC, plus four AP credits, twelve builds would cover 52 subjects. I'm thinking four and four, since I'm having a hard time keeping the subject list under 50, and I think we will be adding more subjects rather than taking them away. Perhaps we should flesh out the list of subjects, and then work backwards from that quantity to how many credits per MOC?

Is four per MOC doable? That would likely be two technique-related ones and two content-related ones (although not strictly so). For example, you could have a build showing a city marketplace with some advanced SNOT building and a variety of trees.

I think we can put up a lot more categories than what would ultimately be needed to "graduate", as this will increase the spread of our builds and help us flesh out the guild even more. I also think it could be a good idea to allow a reasonable number of "own subjects" that a builder can get credit for, to allow for new categories being invented along the way. Of course the official subjects will still be the bulk of the credits needed.

I've changed some of the stuff on the wiki so that some disciplines state: "Pick three of:" Then we can add subjects to those disciplines without adding to the number of builds that someone must do to complete the program. And perhaps we should allow for several 'own subjects', and we can then reduce them as we add new Disciplines.

Yes, 21 might be too few. Something around thirty sounds like it would be good.

I'm not quite sure I understand that... I kind of thought that the idea was (say for history, with say three subjects), something like, Minifigure Posing, some sort of landscaping technique (say, building at different elevations), and something else (all building techniques). Then you would build something that fell under the History category that would qualify for at most two (that could of course change) of the techniques.

I think we have a bunch of Technique-related disciplines (Architecture, Landscape Design, Hydrology) where we really want you to advance specific building techniques, and then we have a bunch of Content-related disciplines (everything else), where we're just making sure that you have built in a wide variety of styles and themes. Any MOC is likely to touch one or more techniques, and at least one content subject. Did I answer your question?

Art is certainly a good one. I had forgotten about that. Music could fall under that as a subject too. And yes, Geography and Agriculture are definitely different, but I would think the subjects (or building techniques) would be very similar - though maybe not?

On the wiki, I've currently got Agriculture set up as a pick-3-of-these-5-subjects discipline. I'm not sure we care that people really have done an MOC illustrating each type of agriculture, but we want them to have done at least a few. In Geography however, I'm thinking one ought to have at least demonstrated that you have done the major geographical types: mountains/cliffs, forests, swamps, desert, etc. I could be convinced either way...

I think one of the reasons NM proposed such a large program was to keep everyone from having the exact same titles in four months (like Avalonia) his method makes it a little more unique and harder to earn titles. Other than the one title I threw around last year, Kaliphlinites don't have a title system, in a way it is refreshing if they only come once in a blue moon, but I think this system would be acceptable and is right in line with GoH's mission statement of telling stories and making us better builders.

Perhaps there's only one title available, Master of Historica, and it's only available after you complete the full program. Then there won't be title overload like there is in Avalonia.

I can ask about the badge, but I am not staff -- I merely have the power to make your text disappear. (Think about that!) So no guarantees there.

I'm willing to create the artwork for it. I'm sure EB doesn't want to hand out badges willy-nilly, but completing a dozen diverse peer-reviewed MOCs is a fairly high bar to achieve, so I don't think we'll be handing out many of these, at least in the short-term.

Art should be added to the lists of disciplines. I think Geography is different from agriculture, but agriculture is too close to landscape design -- so they could be merged.

Good idea. Maybe we can lump Art and Music into a Culture discipline. I'll probably let someone else come up with possible subjects, as Gex is not a very cultured guy. I'd suggest we make this a sort of complete-3-of-the-6-subjects type of discipline.

[Mike S]

Awesome to see the activity back in Kaliphlin!

[SkaForHire]

Perhaps there's only one title available, Master of Historica, and it's only available after you complete the full program. Then there won't be title overload like there is in Avalonia.

I am not opposed to multiple titles... maybe if it is more of a tree, and three disciplines = a bachelors in a broader field... sort of like a family tree. There would be four(ish) bachelors degrees, and after you have earned all of them you would be considered a master, although technically, if we were using the medieval university hierarchy, the first branch would be apprentice, the second would be guildsmen or bachelor, the third would be master, and the last level would be doctor.... If I could illustrate it with a tree it would be easier to understand what I am saying...

[Kai NRG]

Okay, I think I understand now. I was kind of thinking that you could only build for one discipline at a time (though you could cover multiple subjects in that discipline). My main concern with doing four is that it would just be quite a challenge (and maybe turn off some potential builders) to have to go through a huge list of 50+ subjects and mix and match up to four. It does seem like there are plenty of different subject potentials though. Maybe we could have, say twelve disciplines and for the "Master" or whatever a student has to complete seven. Each discipline could have however many subjects we could come up with (some could even overlap, but if so those should be marked so that they aren't done twice) but a student only has to pick four or five to complete the discipline.

My main concern here is that this could get very complicated... with the say thirty subjects necessary to finish, a maximum of four for one MOC, and over fifty to pick from, keeping track of everything might be tough!

[Gideon]

I am not opposed to multiple titles... maybe if it is more of a tree, and three disciplines = a bachelors in a broader field... sort of like a family tree. There would be four(ish) bachelors degrees, and after you have earned all of them you would be considered a master, although technically, if we were using the medieval university hierarchy, the first branch would be apprentice, the second would be guildsmen or bachelor, the third would be master, and the last level would be doctor.... If I could illustrate it with a tree it would be easier to understand what I am saying...

I like the idea of having an academic system with different levels, and why not use medieval titles? Apprentice-Bachelor-Master(-Doctor) sounds great to me. Maybe also step up the review a bit when someone is collecting credits for the higher ranks?

One big question in my mind however, how is all of this going to be administred (keeping track of the credits etc)?

Maybe we could glance at how the SW guys are handling the XP system in the SoNE project?

[NiceMarmot]

As far as keeping track goes, I'd say that every student is responsible for keeping track of themselves, by creating a section in their sigifig's page on the wiki. They just list their MOCs (with a link to the EB topic), and for each MOC, list the subjects certified.

[Gideon]

As far as keeping track goes, I'd say that every student is responsible for keeping track of themselves, by creating a section in their sigifig's page on the wiki. They just list their MOCs (with a link to the EB topic), and for each MOC, list the subjects certified.

I guess that would work, as long as everyone is prepared to wander out of Eurobricks to learn how to contribute on the wiki. But if one is prepared to put countless hours into creating a series of MOCs, spending a few minutes creating an account over there might not be too hard?

[Kayne]

Wow....gone to work for a day and Kaliphlin gets busy! This entire project sounds amazing. You guys have done a great job brainstorming. I am all for this as well, and would love to see these details hammered out.